HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 6:40 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Why skyscrapers are killing great cities (Commentary)

Why skyscrapers are killing great cities


Sep. 25, 2015

By ERIC REGULY



Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com//repo...rticle26423207

Quote:
The new Blackfriars train station in London is a marvel. The airy cavern of glass and steel straddles the Thames River, giving passengers magnificent views of the city. If they look downriver, they will see St. Paul’s Cathedral, one of London’s best-known landmarks for more than 300 years. Clarification: They will barely see St. Paul’s, for today Sir Christopher Wren’s masterpiece is lost in a vertical jungle of skyscrapers, as if London were competing with Dubai.

- Two of the most startling new towers have Canadian pedigrees. Not far from the Shard is the Strata, developed by an arm of Toronto’s Brookfield Asset Management. It looks like an electric razor and is laughably hideous. In 2010, Building Design magazine awarded it the Carbuncle Cup, for Britain’s ugliest new building. The Cheesegrater, officially named the Leadenhall Building, was co-developed by Oxford Properties, the property giant owned by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. The building at least appears to be stable. The Walkie Talkie is fatter at the top than at the bottom and looks like it could topple over.

- The problem isn’t modern architecture per se. When the modern complements the old, it can enhance a city—the Blackfriars station, the Sainsbury Wing of London’s National Gallery and even the glass pyramid at the Louvre are all examples. But when the scale is enormous, and when it has no connection to the features that have given the city its personality for hundreds of years, it overshadows that city’s character. The new look is bland and homogenized. --- Charmless architectural style is one thing; incongruous location is another. The City, as London’s traditional financial district is known, was, until recently, a warren of sturdy low-rise buildings that included guildhalls, Samuel Johnson’s house and old pubs.

- The glass-clad behemoths are quickly eroding the City’s character. Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas says the architectural style of cities is converging. Welcome to the generic city, to borrow his phrase. London is not alone in the vertical sweepstakes. Toronto has hidden its waterfront behind a wall of look-alike condo towers. Paris is getting into the skyscraper game, as are other European capitals. Rome (where I live) is one of the few capitals in the world yet to be despoiled, as egomaniac mayors and property developers view very tall buildings as global status symbols.

- Celebrity architects such as Renzo Piano, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Norman Foster and Daniel Libeskind are in high demand and pump out designs apparently aimed more at attracting attention, like Renaissance codpieces, than enhancing a city’s traditional streetscape. Some of their creations are imaginative, stylish and practical; some are not, or are fine creations plunked at the wrong address. --- The process of turning big cities into clones of Atlanta or Hong Kong can create more than freakish cityscapes. They create long-term problems. One is environmental. Sky-piercing buildings covered in glass windows that can’t be opened require huge amounts of energy all year round for heating, ventilation and air conditioning.

- Energy prices may be falling, but at some point they will reverse course. Many old buildings in Europe simply rely on thick walls to repel the heat in the summer and retain the heat in the winter. Their windows can be opened to create a breeze, and ceiling fans do the rest. --- Another big problem with modern high-rises is that they are single-purpose structures. Bank towers with enormous open trading floors wired to the fastest communications networks cannot be easily remade into housing, factories or shops. For the most part, they will have to be torn down when they have outlived their usefulness.

- But the main shortcoming of the skyscraper craze is the loss of urban identity. When I go to the City, I now go there because I have to. It’s far more enjoyable to stroll through Kensington, Hampstead village or Chelsea. Millions of tourists go to Rome, Florence, Paris, Prague, Edinburgh, Berlin, Barcelona, St. Petersburg and London because, for the most part, they have not been “liberated” (yet) by towers that could have been designed on an Etch A Sketch. If these cities look like Dubai, who will want to go there? Not me.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 6:51 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
I don't think skyscrapers are ruining great cities per se, it's just that London does a particularly HORRIBLE job at making them.

And yes, Starchitects like Gehry are truly a problem.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 7:09 PM
UrbanImpact's Avatar
UrbanImpact UrbanImpact is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,356
London's skyline is awesome! I'm sure it's difficult balancing historic sites with progress in order to keep the city competing with NYC as the top financial market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 7:30 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
The guy clearly hates skyscrapers. the rest of the article is bs. Skyscrapers are neither necessary nor sufficient for making or breaking great cities.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 3:14 AM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
The guy clearly hates skyscrapers. the rest of the article is bs. Skyscrapers are neither necessary nor sufficient for making or breaking great cities.
Exactly. NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, SF, Chicago all great cities and each of these cities have their fair share of midrise human scaled neighborhoods. Skyscrapers are more economically feasible than office midrises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 5:53 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Why skyscrapers are killing great cities


Sep. 25, 2015

By ERIC REGULY



Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com//repo...rticle26423207







Couldn't agree more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 7:21 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Skyscrapers aren't killing all great cities.

Chicago is becoming even greater because of skyscrapers. Same as New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 11:17 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
The mountainous west has already prevented this issue from taking place where you have mountain nimbies that don't want to ruin the view of the mountains in the skyline.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 11:44 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
I don't know, I always think of London and its architecture as being the pinnacle of human civilization. The designs are definitely different than anything in the US and even the rest of Europe. If they're focusing on skyscrapers ruining cities based on what they do to the skyline, then they're focusing on the wrong thing. What really matters of course is how they interact with the street. London has only really started to blossom with skyscrapers in the last 10 to 15 years. I guess the juxtaposition of them "clashing" with the older buildings is bugging some people. Still, I would think the fact that they are so different from what's there would make them unique and appreciated. How many more grand plazas and open space can there be in a city like London or Paris where density is so intense and nearly everything is historical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Exactly. NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, SF, Chicago all great cities and each of these cities have their fair share of midrise human scaled neighborhoods. Skyscrapers are more economically feasible than office midrises.
That's actually not true. Skyscrapers do of course cost more to build and maintain. And they're more difficult to get funding for. But they are more environmentally sustainable. And of course skyscrapers totally make sense in a such a dense environment as London where land is a precious and limited resource.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 1:20 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,589
why skyscrapers are killing london
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 3:06 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
It's amazing how much more presence St Pauls or the Victoria and Alberta Museum or St Pancras has in London than say, the idiotic Vinoly walkie-talkie. almost as bad as 423 park ave.

the 'cheese grater' and the shard are ok though. But it's difficult to feel much affection toward most modern skyscrapers, there or elsewhere. In NYC, it's the 1930s art deco that pokes through the dross of modernism and makes the place special. Well, except for the NY times building and a couple others

London lacks much 20th century landmark architecture, simply because two wars and struggles against european competitors made it difficult (not enough money) to build a london version of the chrysler or chanin or empire state building or rock center or the GE building on lexington or 20 exchange place or AIG or woolworth building. lack of money in the 1930s hampered london, plentiful money in the 1920s-30s made the difference for NYC.

people underestimate just how singular and amazing the crop of 1920s-1930s towers is in New York, compared to basically anywhere else. what do you have in London, the whole foods in south kensington? lol.

of course, 19th century architecture in London is amazing.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete

Last edited by dc_denizen; Sep 30, 2015 at 3:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 3:27 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post

That's actually not true. Skyscrapers do of course cost more to build and maintain. And they're more difficult to get funding for. But they are more environmentally sustainable. And of course skyscrapers totally make sense in a such a dense environment as London where land is a precious and limited resource.
Of course it's true, in many places. That's why they get built.

In many places, land is too expensive to make anything other than a tall building work. And it's expensive because it's in demand, or it's projected to be.

Another factor is that rents are sometimes higher when you go tall. That might be for views or the synergies and recruitment benefits of being in the middle of a big downtown.

Then parking factors in, as always. Part of the equation of a downtown building (with some cities excepted) is that you can do much less parking, or even none (in NY, London...). Going tall is expensive but you're doing far less built square footage per rentable square foot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 4:12 AM
jbermingham123's Avatar
jbermingham123 jbermingham123 is offline
Registered (Nimby Ab)User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At a computer, wasting my life on a skyscraper website
Posts: 742
the backlash is simply because the buildings are new. honestly, they don't really detract from anything.

i mean think about it.... in 20 years, nobody will care about the cheese grater or the walkie talkie.
They will sure as hell still care about St. Paul's though.

in 200 years, nobody will be fighting to restore the shard or canary wharf.
but i would bet good money that St. Paul's will be kept looking sharp until then and long after.
__________________
You guys are laughing now but Jacksonville will soon assume its rightful place as the largest and most important city on Earth.

I heard the UN is moving its HQ there. The eiffel tower is moving there soon as well. Elon Musk even decided he didnt want to go to mars anymore after visiting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 3:42 PM
johnnypd johnnypd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 638
I don't think it is accurate to characterise st paul's as being lost in a sea of skyscrapers as the cathedral is protected by a plethora of sight-lines. It is basically impossible to build tall if an area is covered by a sight-line, and some of them are quite absurd - for instance the viewing corridor from Richmond park, the old royal hunting grounds, which blocks development for a 10 mile stretch because Prince Charles or whoever is nostalgic about the view from one small patch of grassland.



Also the UK has a rather different approach to wealth than the US - it's banking sector always favoured discretion (even today hedge funds prefer to set up in discreet offices of domestic scale hidden away in Mayfair), and historically wealth has been hoarded by the aristocracy and upper classes, who were nervous about extravagant displays of wealth pissing off the lower classes. Less Manhattan, more Zurich. Only in recent decades has this changed, and though the class tension still exists, it may be that more talls is a sign the UK is no longer quite so hung up on class divisions.

That said, 20FCS (the walkie-talkie) is a mistake. You'll struggle to find a more offensively corporate building anywhere - not only is it aggressively top-heavy with its bulk at the top, but it reflects the sun downward, melting the poor peasants on the street below. fugly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 4:20 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
discretion.

thats a cute word for massive criminal money laundering and tax evasion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 4:52 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Quote:
people underestimate just how singular and amazing the crop of 1920s-1930s towers is in New York, compared to basically anywhere else.
Absolutely. The apex of skyscraper design.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 7:03 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Of course it's true, in many places. That's why they get built.

In many places, land is too expensive to make anything other than a tall building work. And it's expensive because it's in demand, or it's projected to be.

Another factor is that rents are sometimes higher when you go tall. That might be for views or the synergies and recruitment benefits of being in the middle of a big downtown.

Then parking factors in, as always. Part of the equation of a downtown building (with some cities excepted) is that you can do much less parking, or even none (in NY, London...). Going tall is expensive but you're doing far less built square footage per rentable square foot.
I just mean because of the higher costs due to more engineering. The higher you go the more elevators you need to carry the traffic to the upper floors, unless you have some building that peters out to a point like Burj Khalifa. Not to mention then with smaller floor plates to avoid that, then you run into problems of where to put all the mechanical stuff.

Anyway, I'm usually not a fan of modern architecture. I look at a lot of what's going up in New York with a bit of disgust actually. So much of it is shapeless uninteresting needles that create no kind of iconic silhouette that is familiar. That's why the 1920's and 30's were so amazing for architecture. You could be 5+ miles from a building with not so great visibility and still know right away what building it was. London has done well with having modern buildings that don't look like just a stack of blocks.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 7:12 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Of all the cities to claim skyscrapers are ruining he chooses a city that by world standards really doesn't have that many. Plenty of second tier metros after NYC and Chicago could compete with London skyscraper wise in North America alone.

lol, who is this guys kidding, London's buildings are cool looking in any case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 7:29 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
To get an idea of how the skyline may change:








Credit: http://www.worldaccordingtomaggie.co...on-being-built

========================
http://www.cityam.com/1410456973/lon...change-capital

Last edited by chris08876; Sep 30, 2015 at 7:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 10:02 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I just mean because of the higher costs due to more engineering. The higher you go the more elevators you need to carry the traffic to the upper floors, unless you have some building that peters out to a point like Burj Khalifa. Not to mention then with smaller floor plates to avoid that, then you run into problems of where to put all the mechanical stuff.
Yes, they tend to cost more per square foot, but land costs (money going out) and rent levels & rentability (money coming in) make the whole equation work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:16 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.